Hello

We are a broadcast "outfit", we would be wary of a list with a large proportion of generic email addresses, marking them as invalid however is incorrect.

What matters is not the email address itself but how it was captured, a large number of SME's may well only have 1 address which is likely to be a sales@.
The problem is that a lot of these emails are published on the companies websites and are therefore likely to be picked up by email harvesting programs.

So while there are some legitimate emails on lists with sales@ the vast majority are of poor quality - in our experience anyway.

Hope this helps in some way.

Marc Munier
www.pure360.com

On 11:34:19 26 July 2008 NeilWarren wrote:

Has anyone got any further experience of sales@ and info@ email addresses forming part of a broadcast list? I have experience of using them successfully, especially when married to personalised subject lines and body copy, but have recently bumped into one outfit that is rejecting them (some, mind you, but not all e.g. sales.uk@...) out of hand saying they are "invalid" as far as their broadcast system is concerned. Seems like that would "invalidate" a major proportion of UK email lists to me, but I'd be interested in any other experiences and opinions.

Wow we are getting about aren't we!

Let me know if I can be of further assistance

marc.munier@pure360.com

On 17:59:35 29 July 2008 NeilWarren wrote:

Thanks Marc

That's interesting, and about what I thought. The only problem, as fate would have it, is that "outfit" does in fact refer to an agency working on behalf of a pretty hefty client and, to the best of my knowledge, using Pure360 as the broadcasting house!

The data was sourced from us through a broker and comprised 5,500 individually researched and opted-in email addresses, each part of an extensive, complete, Company, Contact Name, Telephone No, Email address etc. etc., type of record, telephone researched by us and in no way suspect.

We were told, however, that the broadcast system was what was rejecting the emails, making them "invalid". We have a high percentage of personals compared to any comparable lists I've seen (60%) and, as I said, "the system" did let a variety of generics (about 1,000) through. Personal only emails could have been specified/ordered, but the problem arose when a claim for a refund (£hundreds) came back because of this supposedly "official" invalidation.

So I needed to check how "official" the position might be, and am grateful for your reassurance that your system would normally accept and broadcast them - with the proviso that you mention that nobody should be trying to acquire and use harvested, non-permission based data in any event.

Regards - Neil

On 17:32:37 29 July 2008 MarcMunier wrote:

Hello

We are a broadcast "outfit", we would be wary of a list with a large proportion of generic email addresses, marking them as invalid however is incorrect.

What matters is not the email address itself but how it was captured, a large number of SME's may well only have 1 address which is likely to be a sales@.
The problem is that a lot of these emails are published on the companies websites and are therefore likely to be picked up by email harvesting programs.

So while there are some legitimate emails on lists with sales@ the vast majority are of poor quality - in our experience anyway.

Hope this helps in some way.

Marc Munier
www.pure360.com

On 11:34:19 26 July 2008 NeilWarren wrote:

Has anyone got any further experience of sales@ and info@ email addresses forming part of a broadcast list? I have experience of using them successfully, especially when married to personalised subject lines and body copy, but have recently bumped into one outfit that is rejecting them (some, mind you, but not all e.g. sales.uk@...) out of hand saying they are "invalid" as far as their broadcast system is concerned. Seems like that would "invalidate" a major proportion of UK email lists to me, but I'd be interested in any other experiences and opinions.